For the ignorant I'd just like to put out some reminders:
1. Pakistan has arrested more Al-Quaida members than all other countries put together. Yes that includes the US.
2. Pakistan has arrested and delivered more top 10 Al-Quaida leaders than any other country.
3. The courier that revealed Bin Laden's hideout was in turn revealed by Abu Faraj al Libi, guess who arrested and delivered him to US forces? Yup that's right Pakistan forces.
4. The public support for Al-Quaida and the Taliban in Pakistan is high, thus the Pakistan governement needs to walk a fine line between the public image and their actions. Leading to lot of contradictive actions in the public.
5. Musharraf has been the target of several assassination attempts by people connected to Al-Quaida.
6. The Pakistani governement has several regions in the country where they don't really have any real control.

Pakistan is a mess. They have plenty of factions and local leaders with real power. So while one faction might support the Taliban, another the Al-Quaida, then you'll have another who is fighting both because of their influence etc.

Master of Ossus wrote:2. The article claims that bin Laden might not have been "giving orders," and that if he "was no longer a leader, it would no longer be permissible to treat him as an enemy combatant or kill him." This is BULLSHIT. First of all, international law permits the targeting of people other than "leaders." For instance, direct combatants. Even ignoring this obvious oversight, a lawful target must take steps to identify themselves as no longer being a lawful target in order to escape their status. For instance, retired soldiers must remove their uniforms. Surrendering forces must complete their surrenders. Bin Laden did not do this.

With bin Laden, this condition is obviously satisfied. Bin Laden, as the symbolic and spiritual head of al Qaeda, effectively contributed to al Qaeda's military capabilities. His destruction, capture, or neutralization was a legitimate military objective.

However, the invitation of a host nation is not the only circumstance in which one state can enter another in order to engage a military target. Ashley Deeks lays out the proper test--the "unwilling or unable" one.

How is Pakistan considered an unwilling force against Al-Quida?

In short: the article consistently misstates international law. One also wonders who these unnamed "vast majority of other experts on the law of armed conflict."

The elimination of al-Qaida figurehead Osama bin Laden earlier this month was widely celebrated. But was it the right thing for the US to do? International law expert Kai Ambos argues that killing him was both illegal and morally dubious.

Terrorists, even Osama bin Laden, are humans. As such, they have rights; human rights. Among these rights are the right to life, the right to humane treatment and the right to a fair trial. Fundamental human rights remain valid even in a state of emergency; they are impervious to such exceptions.

In peacetime, the right to life can only be limited in extraordinary circumstances, in particular by reason of self defense. If it is true that Osama bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot, self defense in response to an unlawful attack on the part of entering US Special Forces can be ruled out. Clearly, such an operation takes place under extreme pressure and it is conceivable that the Special Forces acted on the mistaken belief that they were under attack by bin Laden or his people -- criminal lawyers call this "putative self defense" -- but this would not make the killing lawful. It would only cast light on the mental state of the troops in question, and thus their culpability.

Yet, these soldiers are especially trained for such an operation, they are the elite of the elite. If we cannot demand restraint in the use of force from them, then we can't demand it from anybody -- not from the ordinary policeman in the street nor from the citizen defending his life or home. From this perspective, it seems unlikely that they shot bin Laden out of fear or by mistake. Rather they knew perfectly well what they were doing and killed him wantonly and willingly.
Why Are Al-Qaida Criminals Treated Differently?

Here is the problem. A targeted killing of a terrorist does not, contrary to what US President Barack Obama has suggested, do a service to justice; rather, it runs contrary to it. A state governed by the rule of law, treats even its enemies humanely. It arrests terrorists and brings them before a court. This is exactly what Germany did with the Red Army Faction (RAF) and what it does today with al-Qaida members. This is what the US did in Nuremberg with the Nazis and what it promotes all over the world with other criminals against mankind. Why are the criminals of al-Qaida treated differently?

Should their guilt be established by way of a fair trial, they can be punished with severe sentences, including in some countries like the US, with the death penalty. The trial must come first, though. A killing in the absence of a fair trial constitutes an extra-judicial or extra-legal execution, which is unworthy of a state ruled by law (Rechtsstaat). Indeed, it is an act for which countries not ruled by law (Unrechtsstaaten) are charged before human rights bodies. Those who carry out or approve such extra-judicial killings forfeit the right to reproach authoritarian states for the very same practices.

War, i.e. an "armed conflict" under International Humanitarian Law, presents a different legal situation. In such circumstances, people can lawfully be killed when they directly participate in hostilities. The prohibition on killing is suspended in international armed conflicts for combatants and in non-international armed conflicts for so-called fighters or de facto combatants.

These actors can, under specific conditions, also be the subjects of targeted killings. The most important condition is that the principle of proportionality is complied with, i.e. less severe measures (such as arrest) are to be preferred and unnecessary civilian victims must be avoided. If a targeted killing occurs in foreign territory, the territorial state must consent to the operation; otherwise the action amounts to a violation of state sovereignty, prohibited by Public International Law.

The Misleading Rhetoric of the "War on Terror"

None of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on the fight against international terrorism, and in particular al-Qaida (Res. 1267 of 1999 to Res. 1974 of 2011), authorize the carrying out of operations on foreign territory, nor the arrest, and even less the killing, of (suspected) terrorists. These resolutions can, at best, be read, in line with the various Terrorism Conventions, as allowing the extradition or prosecution (aut dedere aut iudicare) of terrorism suspects.

In the case at hand, the targeted killing was not permitted since the US -- contrary to the misleading rhetoric of "the war on terror" -- is not involved in an armed conflict with al-Qaida. A loose and decentralised terrorist network does not fulfil the criteria for classification as a party to a conflict within the context of International Humanitarian Law. It lacks, above all, a centralized and hierarchical military command structure and the control of a defined territory.

Were we nevertheless to proclaim an international armed conflict against al-Qaida, the whole world would become a battlefield and the classic understanding of an armed conflict as being on a defined state territory and thus involving limited military confrontation, would be extended so as to know no bounds. While one cannot deny that armed conflicts can entail "spill over effects," such as via the retreat of one of the parties to the conflict into the territory of a neighboring state (as, for example, occurred when the Taliban fled from Afghanistan to neighboring Pakistan), the extra-territorial reach of such conflicts always reverts back to the original territorial armed conflict. Otherwise, the whole world would be turned into a battlefield with unforeseeable consequences.

Ultimately, this would lead to a worldwide "war on terror" involving all states where "terrorists" reside without them ever having entered into a formal armed conflict with the state waging this war. Indeed, this has been the position of the US government since Sept. 11, 2001. To the disappointment of many, the Obama administration has forcefully reconfirmed this position by killing bin Laden and by the killing of many alleged al-Qaida members (and civilians) before him by the increased use of predator drones.
Triumphing over the Terrorist Injustice

One may be able to understand this position in the light of Sept., 11 and what it did to the self-esteem of the US, the world's only superpower, humiliated as never before. But does this justify carrying out a policy which deliberately sidesteps the recognized principles of international humanitarian law?

Lastly, even if one wanted, for the sake of argument, to suppose the existence of an armed conflict between the US and al-Qaida, only those directly involved in the hostilities could be subject to military attack. They themselves must carry out military operations, command such operations or authoritatively plan them. They must further carry out a "continuous combat function." This is also in no way certain as regards bin Laden, since many believe he was only the spiritual leader of al-Qaida and had no influence on concrete military operations. The video footage recently released by the US seems to confirm this view.

Beyond these complex and indeed contentious legal questions, lies the much more fundamental issue as to whether the Western world really wants to deprive their terrorist enemies of their right to life and other fundamental human rights and declare them military fair game. To ask the question is to answer it in the negative. The moral and political superiority of a free and democratic society dictates that it treats its enemies as persons with minimal rights and does not do as the enemy does -- act with barbarism and contempt for mankind.

It does not wage "war" against terrorists, but combats them with a fair and proportional criminal law, in line with the rule of law. This does not exclude the use of force and even the killing of terrorists as ultima ratio but only respecting the rules and conditions set out above. This alone ensures the kind of justice that has been promoted particularly by the US since Nuremberg -- a kind of justice which many of us thought President Obama had resuscitated. This is the only foundation from which we can triumph over the terrorist injustice.

I disagree with the characterization of the actions of the seals, as I do not feel qualified to judge them yet. However, the article seems to argue a different point regarding what you seem to claim, Ossus, especially with regards to the continued function in combat.

But I will concede this argument for now, as I feel that not enough information has come to light whether bin Laden was actually reaching for a weapon or not. If he was, then I got no objection. If however he was unarmed and had actually surrendered, that is a different situation.

Broomstick wrote:

Thanas wrote:However, as I said in my very first posts in this thread, I don't really find fault with the end result. I think however the way it was achieved was not the best for a matter of reasons.

In other words, you approve of the end but still have a lot of questions about the means?

Yes. The sovereignty of Pakistan, for once, and the issue of whether bin Laden was actively fighting back.

Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------My LPs

Thanas wrote:How is Pakistan considered an unwilling force against Al-Quida?

It is either unwilling or unable to do that particular mission (bringing bin Laden to justice). Bin Laden was living in Pakistan for the better part of a decade in a huge, guarded compound, with no one asking any questions. Contrary to Pakistani claims, he was not dead, and not living in an uncontrolled region of the country. This demonstrates that they were either unwilling to combat him, or else unable to do so (or, as has been stated, they were either "complicit or incompetent"). In either case, the US would have had the ability to enter Pakistani territory, with their approval or without.

[snip article]

I disagree with the characterization of the actions of the seals, as I do not feel qualified to judge them yet. However, the article seems to argue a different point regarding what you seem to claim, Ossus, especially with regards to the continued function in combat.

Actually, I read the article differently. I don't see anything in the article suggesting that bin Laden needed a continuing role in the structure of al Qaeda to be a legitimate target. Rather, the author spends the majority of the article criticizing the characterization of the issue as an "ongoing armed conflict." Instead, the article consistently pushes for a characterization of the conflict with Al Qaeda as a mere police action, in which the use of lethal force must be prefaced by a direct threat to life or limb. I don't see much in the article that argues that bin Laden was not a lawful target if the conflict with Al Qaeda is an ongoing armed conflict.

Assuming that this is what the author is claiming, then the author's is not the prevailing view, according to the ICRC (I posted the link, earlier, and redacted the relevant passage). As I have already discussed, the conflict is an armed conflict because it meets the minimum scale requirements (Al Qaeda's atrocities have killed thousands of people, to say nothing of the thousands more that were killed in the ensuing conflict and the hundreds of thousands who were displaced as the collective armies of dozens of nations came into direct conflict with them), and because Al Qaeda and the US military are both minimally organized.

In this context, it's also interesting to read through other proposed definitions of "ongoing armed conflict," so you can see that none of them support the concept that the battle with Al Qaeda is anything other than an ongoing armed conflict. For instance, other definitions ask whether or not the state actor is compelled to use its military forces, as opposed to its police forces (which the US and its allies have inarguably been forced to resort to--Al Qaeda is too powerful and too distant from our power bases to be properly addressed using only police).

But I will concede this argument for now, as I feel that not enough information has come to light whether bin Laden was actually reaching for a weapon or not. If he was, then I got no objection. If however he was unarmed and had actually surrendered, that is a different situation.

Whether or not he was armed is irrelevant. (Edit: well, assuming that the conflict can be characterized as an "ongoing armed conflict." If it were a mere police action then I agree that it would be material.) Whether he had surrendered is the only legitimate question, and we have no indication at all that he had.

"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

Supposedly, Harold Koh is blogging tomorrow on the legality of the bin Laden mission. I'm, kinda hoping that it just about settle the issue once and for all, so even the Euro-morons who aren't willing to look up the law even as they describe themselves as a vast majority of experts will be satisfied.

Thanas wrote:How is Pakistan considered an unwilling force against Al-Quida?

It is either unwilling or unable to do that particular mission (bringing bin Laden to justice).

That is just stupid. Quoting myself not more than 4 posts above yours:

Spoonist wrote:For the ignorant I'd just like to put out some reminders:
1. Pakistan has arrested more Al-Quaida members than all other countries put together. Yes that includes the US.
2. Pakistan has arrested and delivered more top 10 Al-Quaida leaders than any other country.
3. The courier that revealed Bin Laden's hideout was in turn revealed by Abu Faraj al Libi, guess who arrested and delivered him to US forces? Yup that's right Pakistan forces.
4. The public support for Al-Quaida and the Taliban in Pakistan is high, thus the Pakistan governement needs to walk a fine line between the public image and their actions. Leading to lot of contradictive actions in the public.
5. Musharraf has been the target of several assassination attempts by people connected to Al-Quaida.
6. The Pakistani governement has several regions in the country where they don't really have any real control.

Pakistan is a mess. They have plenty of factions and local leaders with real power. So while one faction might support the Taliban, another the Al-Quaida, then you'll have another who is fighting both because of their influence etc.

All of those are easily veryfiable through google.

How can you say that Pakistan is unwilling to fight Al-Quaida when they have done more than anyone else?
If Bin Laden would have hid in kashmir would you call India complicit and/or incompetent?
Would you call the US complicit and/or incompetent for spending 10 years and two wars just to get a trace on the guy?
If you at least had put in a caveat about ISI, or even better parts of the Pakistani establishment, or similar.
But no. Pakistan full stop.

Thanas wrote:How is Pakistan considered an unwilling force against Al-Quida?

It is either unwilling or unable to do that particular mission (bringing bin Laden to justice).

That is just stupid. Quoting myself not more than 4 posts above yours:

Spoonist wrote:For the ignorant I'd just like to put out some reminders:
1. Pakistan has arrested more Al-Quaida members than all other countries put together. Yes that includes the US.
2. Pakistan has arrested and delivered more top 10 Al-Quaida leaders than any other country.

If I didn't know better, I might hypothesize that Al Qaeda and the Taliban had specifically fled to Pakistan... for some reason... like, say, they might have thought that Pakistan were unwilling and unable to effectively operate against them. But that would be crazy, of course.

3. The courier that revealed Bin Laden's hideout was in turn revealed by Abu Faraj al Libi, guess who arrested and delivered him to US forces? Yup that's right Pakistan forces.

This is what passes for Pakistan's "willingness and ability" to operate against Al Qaeda? "Well... we caught someone who told you about someone who knew something."

4. The public support for Al-Quaida and the Taliban in Pakistan is high, thus the Pakistan governement needs to walk a fine line between the public image and their actions. Leading to lot of contradictive actions in the public.

Almost as if the country is unwilling or unable to deal with Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

5. Musharraf has been the target of several assassination attempts by people connected to Al-Quaida.
6. The Pakistani governement has several regions in the country where they don't really have any real control.

Yes. Willing and able to deal with the problem.

Pakistan is a mess. They have plenty of factions and local leaders with real power. So while one faction might support the Taliban, another the Al-Quaida, then you'll have another who is fighting both because of their influence etc.

All of those are easily veryfiable through google.

How can you say that Pakistan is unwilling to fight Al-Quaida when they have done more than anyone else?

Because they haven't. In fact, they've done less than virtually anyone else--they have provided massive support and safe-havens for the Taliban and for Al Qaeda that no other country has provided. You can make all the excuses in the world, "Oh, confronting the Taliban is hard for them so they don't bother with it because their population strongly favors the Taliban," but ultimately all of this reflects back on the country.

As for all of the facts that you cite as indicative of willingness and ability to address the Taliban and Al Qaeda, I can make mirror claims to every single one of them with regards to Mexico and the drug cartels. Would you say that Mexico is "able" to fight the drug cartels?

If Bin Laden would have hid in kashmir would you call India complicit and/or incompetent?

Yes. Particularly if "Kashmir" meant "the town which is home to India's premier military academy and a major regional HQ of its intelligence service," and if the Prime Minister of India had repeatedly assured the world that bin Laden was dead and was certainly not living in such an area, and had collected billions of dollars from foreign countries specifically meant to aid in its ability to fight bin Laden, and if there were clear evidence that members of India's intelligence service had used official Indian resources to actively assist bin Laden in the past.

Would you call the US complicit and/or incompetent for spending 10 years and two wars just to get a trace on the guy?

If Pakistan spent months developing evidence that a particular compound in Afghanistan were the home of Mullah Omar, eventually decided that it was worth the risk to raid the compound, in fact found that compound to house Mullah Omar (whom they killed or captured during the raid), and if that town were the home base of a large group of the American or Afghan militaries and their regional HQ and if that particular compound was demonstrably suspicious in that it had many, many characteristics which were unusual for that neighborhood, then I would not object to the Pakistani operation on the basis of a bullshit national sovereignty spiel.

If you at least had put in a caveat about ISI, or even better parts of the Pakistani establishment, or similar.
But no. Pakistan full stop.

What incredible hair splitting. "Sure, law enforcement, the military, the intelligence service, they can't deal with the problem (either because they don't want to or because they can't), and sure, large sections of the government and the population actually support the problem, and large sections of the territory of the country aren't really under the country's control, but really the country as a whole is totally willing and able to deal with it. Absolutely. Take it to the bank."

Pakistan. Full. Stop.

"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

If law enforcement, military and intelligence service wasn't dealing with the problem, then which part of the Pakistani government was the one responsible for killing or capturing so many AQ personnel? Was it their tax service? Maybe those Al Quaeda guys were just like Al Capone, and the only one in Pakistan who could take them down is some Pakistani Kevin Costner, with the assistance of Pakistani Sean Connery and Pakistani Andy Garcia? Maybe it was their city sanitation services, maybe Pakistani Groundskeeper Willie had enough and decided to come at the Al-Qaeda terrorists with a lawnmower! Oooh! Oooh! Maybe their bureau of transportation hired Jason Statham to "transport" the terrorizers to America!

And yes, Mexico is fighting the drug cartels. Their troops are waging war against the cartels and are getting killed, their politicians are getting murdered, helicopters are shot down and people have been found in car trunks with their severed dicks in their mouths. Is this the expected treatment of an ally of the cartels/AQ, responsible for aiding and/or abetting them? Or, I don't know, is this actually the sign of a massive internal struggle involving multiple multi-faceted parties vying for control over a land that's gone mad, making bullshit generalizing statements exactly that - bullshit.

Maybe we can show examples of how the US military is so ineffective in stopping the insurgency in Iraq, and make up a shitty argument using the existence of a major terrorist cell just XYZ kilometers away from the Green Zone as proof of the US military's support of the insurgency. Oh wait, the US military did try to bribe some of the warring factions in Iraq. Oops.

Bullshit black and white statements are typical of people who are sheltered and comfortable in their shitty little safe rich ass countries oceans away from the actual troubled regions in the world, who never have to live in places where people are meaninglessly killed en masse so often, and who never have to deal with the complex and bloody realities of such terrible places.

It's just so fucking easy for fat Americans to run their mouths when they're not the ones living in the countries where politicians, journalists, human rights activists and all those who oppose these assholes are routinely shot and killed or bombed in plain sight.

"DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people - PeZookShroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medicPink Sugar Heart Attack!

@MoO
I don't even know where to start. You have so much which is so wrong with your logic that its just a chinese wall of ignorance.

You seriously claim that the country who have had more arrests/kills than all other combined are unwilling to fight Al-Quaida?
That is simply village idiot title worthy.

Master of Ignorance wrote:

Spoonist wrote:3. The courier that revealed Bin Laden's hideout was in turn revealed by Abu Faraj al Libi, guess who arrested and delivered him to US forces? Yup that's right Pakistan forces.

This is what passes for Pakistan's "willingness and ability" to operate against Al Qaeda? "Well... we caught someone who told you about someone who knew something."

Again, WTF?
Did you miss the relevance? Without the active assistance of Pakistan Bin Ladin would still be alive.
Do they have moles? Of course. Would such moles have warned Bin Ladin? Of course. Does that mean they are unwilling? Fuck no.

By your logic the US is unwilling to fight the US mafia. The US is unwilling to fight gangs. The US is unwilling to fight crime. Etc.
It just makes no sense. Just because you are not 100% effective, or even if you are losing the fight doesn't make you unwilling.

Simpleton wrote:What incredible hair splitting. "Sure, law enforcement, the military, the intelligence service, they can't deal with the problem (either because they don't want to or because they can't), and sure, large sections of the government and the population actually support the problem...

So you consider the US as unwilling, incompetent and complicit because the FBI is losing the battle on drugs? Again, village idiot worthy.

I just don't know how to breach such a massive wall of ignorance. Any help would be appreciated.

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes. I mean, it's, like, if you -- if you put a new house up in my neighborhood, the first thing we all say -- Who's building that house? Who lives there? And if it's -- you know, if it's this big, eight times the size of any other house in the area, that would certainly be a curiosity.

RUMSFELD: Well, I don't know. You don't believe, I don't know. And I know I don't know. I think it's awfully easy to assume that somebody must have known, but hindsight is 20/20. There might have been a superb cover story for that house. That's not to say that possibly someone in the intelligence service, even possibly someone in the military, but more likely someone in the intelligence service might have known.

VAN SUSTEREN: Were you confident at the time you were secretary that you were getting the straight story from the Pakistani intelligence, the Pakistani military and General Musharraf as head of the government?

RUMSFELD: I had confidence in General Musharraf, in what he told me. I had every reason to believe that the -- that there were undoubtedly people in the ISI that had very close relationships with the Taliban. We know that. We also know that Musharraf -- they tried to kill Musharraf two or three times, and he's lucky to be alive today. So it wasn't like he was sitting there with multiple sources of information and relationships and tricking the United States. I don't believe he was. I think he was dealing with us straight.

And I also have every reason to believe that there were people in the ISI with long relationships with Hekmatyar and with various people in the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Taliban in Pakistan which they really used as a foil to counter the Indian influence in the Northern Alliance. And it was no surprise. That was well known to us.

Now, does that mean that the entire institution of the Pakistani intelligence service was disloyal to the government and disloyal to the United States in terms of our understandings with the government? No, I don't think the entire ISI was. Were there people in there that were? I'm certain there were.

VAN SUSTEREN: I think...

RUMSFELD: But think of this. The Pakistani military did a pretty darn good job for us inside of Pakistan except in the federally administered tribal areas. They went in there one time and tried to be helpful, and they lost 200 dead from their military trying to be of assistance in the Fatah.

Spoonist wrote:@MoO
I don't even know where to start. You have so much which is so wrong with your logic that its just a chinese wall of ignorance.

You seriously claim that the country who have had more arrests/kills than all other combined are unwilling to fight Al-Quaida?
That is simply village idiot title worthy.

I've never claimed that, you fucking idiot. I've stated very clearly that when the scope of the problem is as fucking huge as Al Qaeda in Pakistan, willingness=/=ability, which you have ignored constantly.

You've simply assumed that if you just show that Pakistan has any willingness to fight Al Qaeda, you can totally disregard the 'ability' dimension, even though that's the dimension that I've consistently disputed and even though they're both necessary elements to asserting a claim of sovereignty as against another nation's entry.

Again, WTF?
Did you miss the relevance? Without the active assistance of Pakistan Bin Ladin would still be alive.
Do they have moles? Of course. Would such moles have warned Bin Ladin? Of course. Does that mean they are unwilling? Fuck no.

IT MEANS THAT THEY WERE FUCKING UNABLE TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM YOU MORON. IF THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO DEAL WITH HIM THEN PAKISTAN'S ALLEGED WILLINGNESS IS IRRELEVANT.

If there were moles in Pakistan that would have tipped off bin Laden to an impending raid had the Pakistanis been informed of it and that warning could have allowed him to escape, then ipso facto Pakistan was unable to deal with him.

Concession accepted.

And, while we're at it, if the country is as fucking fragmented as you claim, then how does willingness from one subset of Pakistan and its government to fight Al Qaeda show willingness on the part of the whole country? You're not even being logically self consistent, even apart from your willful refusal to acknowledge that ability is also a necessary element of the test. If you can't show unwillingness to fight Al Qaeda by showing that a large portion of the population, and a large element of the country's armed forces and intelligence sources actively support Al Qaeda and have for years--even by handing over government-provided resources to Al Qaeda-- how the fuck can you show positive national willingness to fight Al Qaeda by indicating that others have fought against them?

By your logic the US is unwilling to fight the US mafia. The US is unwilling to fight gangs. The US is unwilling to fight crime. Etc.
It just makes no sense. Just because you are not 100% effective, or even if you are losing the fight doesn't make you unwilling.

It makes you UNABLE when the scope of the problem is fucking huge, to the point where the percentage of your failures dwarf the successes. Jesus fucking Christ. HOW DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?

So you consider the US as unwilling, incompetent and complicit because the FBI is losing the battle on drugs? Again, village idiot worthy.

I just don't know how to breach such a massive wall of ignorance. Any help would be appreciated.

If the US were fighting an "ongoing armed conflict" with drug cartels (which it's obviously not by any definition; Mexico is by any definition--a fact that you and your idiot friend Shroom Man seem to dismiss without explanation even though it's a critical aspect of the legal case), and if hundreds of people were being killed monthly in the US by drug cartels, and if hundreds of thousands of people in the US had been displaced by the drug cartels, and if the US military were actively battling them but not making any appreciable headway, and if there were good reason to believe that American military and intelligence officials were actively assisting the drug cartels and would tip off the cartels if they were informed of a raid ahead of time, then I would not object to Mexico sending a commando team to raid a compound in the US which they had cased for months and determined with high probability that a cartel leader were staying in to selectively use lethal force against a small fraction of the people living in that compound while avoiding the use of lethal force against a large number of others.

I have spelled it out so simply that a young, semi-literate child could easily grasp it, so I'm not surprised that it's taking you so long. You keep at it, though, Tiger.

"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes. I mean, it's, like, if you -- if you put a new house up in my neighborhood, the first thing we all say -- Who's building that house? Who lives there? And if it's -- you know, if it's this big, eight times the size of any other house in the area, that would certainly be a curiosity.

RUMSFELD: Well, I don't know. You don't believe, I don't know. And I know I don't know. I think it's awfully easy to assume that somebody must have known, but hindsight is 20/20. There might have been a superb cover story for that house. That's not to say that possibly someone in the intelligence service, even possibly someone in the military, but more likely someone in the intelligence service might have known.

VAN SUSTEREN: Were you confident at the time you were secretary that you were getting the straight story from the Pakistani intelligence, the Pakistani military and General Musharraf as head of the government?

RUMSFELD: I had confidence in General Musharraf, in what he told me. I had every reason to believe that the -- that there were undoubtedly people in the ISI that had very close relationships with the Taliban. We know that. We also know that Musharraf -- they tried to kill Musharraf two or three times, and he's lucky to be alive today. So it wasn't like he was sitting there with multiple sources of information and relationships and tricking the United States. I don't believe he was. I think he was dealing with us straight.

And I also have every reason to believe that there were people in the ISI with long relationships with Hekmatyar and with various people in the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Taliban in Pakistan which they really used as a foil to counter the Indian influence in the Northern Alliance. And it was no surprise. That was well known to us.

Now, does that mean that the entire institution of the Pakistani intelligence service was disloyal to the government and disloyal to the United States in terms of our understandings with the government? No, I don't think the entire ISI was. Were there people in there that were? I'm certain there were.

VAN SUSTEREN: I think...

RUMSFELD: But think of this. The Pakistani military did a pretty darn good job for us inside of Pakistan except in the federally administered tribal areas. They went in there one time and tried to be helpful, and they lost 200 dead from their military trying to be of assistance in the Fatah.

etc more at the link.

You really want to go with Rumsfeld as evidence? He's one of the worst SecDefs EVER. He's at best ignorant, at worst so stupid and arrogant that he fell for a lot of very obvious lies.

So... one guy thinks that some Pakistani government employees were dealing with us straight, and says that others were not. And you cite this as proof that Pakistan was willing AND ABLE to deal with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban?

"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

Yahoo wrote:
Bulletproof dog that stormed Osama's compound had tactical body armour
By ANI | ANI – Fri, May 20, 2011
EmailPrint......Washington, May 20 (ANI): The revelation of 'America's most courageous dog' that served alongside the 80 Navy SEALs during the hunting operation of Osama bin Laden, has focussed people's attention on how the military uses tactical body armour around the body of such war dogs to allow them to operate efficiently in a tactical situation, and remain connected.

Last year, the military spent 86,000 dollars on four tactical vests to outfit Navy Seal dogs.

The SEALs hired Winnipeg, Canada-based contractor K9 Storm to gear up their four-legged, canine partners, which it has used in battle since World War I. K9 Storm's flagship product is the 20,000-30,000 dollars.

The tactical body armour is wired with a collapsible video arm, two-way audio, and other attachable gadgets, Today Tech reports. Various special ops units use the vest, including those in current headlines. It is much more than just body armor," Mike Herstik, a consultant with International K-9 who has trained dogs from Israeli bomb-sniffing units to the Navy SEALs, said.

To make them stay connected in difficult situations, high-definition camera is mounted on the dog's back, and the handlers can see what the dog sees, using handheld monitors.

Jim Slater, who co-founded K9 Storm with his wife Glori, says footage is stable because the entire module is sewn into the vest. Besides, the camera adjusts automatically to night vision during unpredictable light conditions, like middle-of-the-night missions, and the lens is protected by impact-resistant shielding. It is also waterproof.

The armour itself protects against shots from 9mm and .45 magnum handguns.

In Abbottabad, the patented load-bearing harness would have enabled a Navy SEAL handler to rappel from the helicopter with his dog strapped to his body. Once in the compound, the dog could run ahead to scout as the handler issued commands through an integrated microphone and speaker in the armor. The proprietary speaker system enables handlers to relay commands at low levels to the dog.

"Handlers need to see and hear how their dog is responding. In a tactical situation, every second counts. Every gram counts for our clients. So we prefer advanced fibers and innovative textiles. The entire communication module is 20 ounces." The average armor weighs between three to seven pounds, depending on the size of the dog and the level of protection," Slater, a veteran police dog trainer and built the first vest after a prison riot, said. (ANI)
...

War Dogs. Tactical Armour protection against up to 9mm and .45 magnum handguns. Two way audio. Camera feed. It's hard to imagine a more suitable time for this quote:

@Master of Ossus
Apologies are in order.
I thought that I'd have the time for a lengthy post but I'm swamped with RL issues. So even if I did one then I couldn't reply to the next one so I'll have to withdraw instead.
I'll completely concede the argument for now and hope that we can re-engage at a later time.

That they did. I have yet to hear of any dog armor which is heavier then level II; though god only knows the Russian have likely patented something by now with auxiliary caterpillar tracks that allows the dog to withstand RPGs and artillery fire.

"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956

That they did. I have yet to hear of any dog armor which is heavier then level II; though god only knows the Russian have likely patented something by now with auxiliary caterpillar tracks that allows the dog to withstand RPGs and artillery fire.

That they did. I have yet to hear of any dog armor which is heavier then level II; though god only knows the Russian have likely patented something by now with auxiliary caterpillar tracks that allows the dog to withstand RPGs and artillery fire.

Dog controlled tanks firing chain guns, actually. I mean, let's just call a spade a spade here, they need some sort of equalizer when those Chinese hordes pour across the Siberian border. Putin can't kill them all himself, his arms would cramp up.

"I'm sorry, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that your inability to use the brain evolution granted you is any of my fucking concern."
"You. Stupid. Shit." Victor desperately wished he knew enough Japanese to curse properly. "Davions take alot of killing." -Grave CovenantFounder of the Cult of Weber

I think part of the problem is dogs have highly curved chests, so it would be very hard to make a solid trauma plate that would fit; it'd have to be more like dragon skin style plate mail to be effective and near custom fit to dog though hell for 30 grand maybe they could do that. End result though will be serious loss of dog mobility. Even without solid plates, just Level IIIA soft armor is still pretty heavy bulky stuff which is why police don't even normally use it. The stance of a dog also simply makes armor less effective then on a human, since you can't armor the neck or head (dog helmet?) and that's a big portion of the frontal cross section of comrade canine.

"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956